曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

through the organisation and management
of the airspace, balancing demand with
capacity and traffic synchronisation.
The second layer, ‘tactical’, provides
separation when the first – strategic –
layer can not do this efficiently. It does it
through an agent, who is either the
airspace user or an air navigation service
provider. Should this second layer be
compromised, then the third layer,
‘collision avoidance’ is activated. This is
not part of separation as collision
avoidance systems are not included in
determining the calculated level of safety
required for separation provision.
The Airborne Collision Avoidance
System (ACAS) in ICAO terminology is
the collision avoidance layer of conflict
management. ICAO concepts all require
that the collision avoidance layer is an
independent safety net system and has the
universal agreement of IFATCA
(controllers) and IFALPA (pilots) for
this position.
Although ACAS is not a part of the
separation provision it is, however, vital
that it is compatible with it. In short,
when smaller separation standards/minima
IFATCA stresses that
cooperation is the
key to successful
implementation of
future ATM concepts
and is promoting
a pragmatic
approach
EUROCONTROL / IFATCA 2008: a collaborative approach to the future > Designing the network
33
Dr David Baker looks at how pilot control of separation can be embedded in the
Air Traffic Management system and the key elements that need to be in place
Cooperative separation
▼
EUROCONTROL / IFATCA 2008: a collaborative approach to the future > Designing the network
are introduced then ACAS will need to be
amended to be compatible. An example of
redefining ‘smaller standards’ may be seen
when pilot separation minima are smaller
than controller minima, an example being
the Reduced Vertical Separation Minima.
One area of contention among pilots is
the ASAS, defined by ICAO draft
documents as: “An aircraft system based
on airborne surveillance that provides
assistance to the flight crew supporting the
separation of their aircraft from other
aircraft.” There are seemingly some areas
where ASAS, as defined in Europe,
embraces applications that appear not to
fit the concept. Moreover, applications
such as merging and spacing are not
separation functions. They belong to the
first layer of conflict management and are
traffic synchronisation applications.
IFATCA supports the definition that
ASAS is for use of the flight crew,
however, it considers the definition is
limited, as separation is not just from
other aircraft but from other hazards as
well. Says Peters: “It is not acceptable for
one aircraft to avoid the other by flying
into another hazard (such as weather or
incompatible airspace activity).”
Naturally, analysis of traffic
synchronisation does not, of course, imply
that course separation can be ignored.
Quite simply, synchronisation and
separation are different functions and have
different responsibilities. One of the
difficult and frequently avoided dilemmas
is that of integrating these two elements. It
is absolutely vital that the system must
ensure separation from all hazards
concurrently and simultaneously –
together. Separation modes must develop
further, as pilot separation is not the basic
‘see and avoid’ type but a more
demanding application.
Pilot separation is a process in which
the pilot decides how to separate his/her
aircraft from others and where the pilot
is responsible for complying with the
rules applicable to that separation mode
(or standard) chosen by the pilot. The
pilot is responsible for monitoring that
the separation mode continues to apply,
or to implement another alternative
mode before the first separation standard
ceases to apply. Consider first the
situation of a controller separating. For
example, the controller’s separation
standard is five miles and the pilot is
instructed by the controller to maintain
a spacing of seven miles. The controller
is still responsible for making sure the
aircraft do not come closer than five
miles separation standard (as although
the pilot has an instruction to remain at
seven miles, it is the controller who is
responsible for separation). If the pilot
fails to maintain spacing of seven miles,
the controller is required to intervene
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：A Collaborative Approach to the Future(13)